Talks at World Economic Forum in Davos Focus on Global Development Aid, Renewable Energy, Climate Pact

Microsoft founder Bill Gates during a panel discussion on "Meeting the Millennium Development Goals," at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland Friday, Jan. 29, 2010. (AP Photo/Michel Euler)

(CBS/AP) Last Updated 8:55 a.m. ET

"Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his wife Melinda say their foundation will donate $10 billion over the next decade to research new vaccines and bring them to the world's poorest countries.

Gates spoke during a press conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos about how to better target global development aid...."---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------America and Gates Foundation:"UNC Receives Gates Foundation Grant to Help Tackle Reproductive Health Issues Facing Urban Poor"

March 30, 2009 UNC News Services

"The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has received more than $22 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for a new project that aims to improve the reproductive health of the urban poor in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.pop_logo

The project, Measurement, Learning and Evaluation for the Urban Reproductive Health Initiative, will be run by UNC’s Carolina Population Center. Working with the center on the project are the African Population and Health Research Center, based in Nairobi, Kenya, and the Population Reference Bureau in Washington, D.C....."----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------India and Gates Foundation:

"Bill Gates Along With His Wife Visits Red Light Area"

Bill Gates visit sex workers in Pune:

After stepping down as the chairman of Microsoft, Bill Gates along with Melinda Gates is dedicated to the the worksof the Gates foundation.

Microsoft founder and co-chairman of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, visited sex workers in Pune. Gates along with his wife Melinda visited the red light area of Budhwar Peth in Pune to create awareness amongst the sex workers regarding AIDS on Thursday.

Bill Gates took on the Famine Lobby while addressing a forum on the world food supply in Iowa. Speaking at the World Food Prize Symposium in Des Moines, Gates took aim at the chorus of environmental leftists and organic food advocates who believe Africans should starve rather than eat genetically modified (GM) foods. “Some voices are instantly hostile to any emphasis on productivity. They act as if there is no emergency, even though in the poorest, hungriest places on earth, population is growing faster than productivity,” he said.

The opposition is significant, because Gates is left-of-center himself. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with assets of $29 billion as of 2005, has focused on the “population” side of the “problem” in the past, sending billions of dollars in grants to such pro-abortion groups as Planned Parenthood; Population Action International, Population Services International, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, and the Population Resource Center. Gates has also financed such organizations as the Tides Center, the Tides Foundation, the National Council of La Raza, and has supported a gun control initiative in Washington state.

However, Gates announced he will issue a $120 million grant to increase food productivity in sub-Saharan Africa through the planting of genetically modified seeds. In Des Moines, Gates cited a Stanford study from 2008 concluding African farmers will lose one-quarter of their productivity within 20 years if they continue to plant the same strains of corn. However, “If the seeds perform well, African farmers can expect to produce two-million more tons of maize in a year of moderate drought.” Radio Iowa reports Gates has “committed more than a billion dollars” in all.

Taking on the Green Left

In proposing this initiative, he is standing up to the Green Left, which has long favored environmental “purity” to human well-being. Greenpeace cooked up the term “Frankenfood” to demonize genetically modified foods a decade ago. Jeremy Rifkin called GM foods, “a form of annihilation every bit as deadly as nuclear holocaust” and compared their cultivation to “Nazi eugenics.” So successful was their campaign that many ecological groups have equated the agricultural corporation Monsanto, a leader in biotechnology, with the antichrist.

Dire predictions aside, GM foods not only potentially increase food production but have replaced the need to spray crops with chemical pesticides, which sickened or killed Africans. Those farmers who spray can now streamline the process, saving them much time and money. The modified crops are more resistant to cold, drought, herbicides, pests, and disease. They also supplied nutritional gaps in the consumption patterns of the poor. For instance, so-called “golden rice” spliced Vitamin A into rice, which could stave off blindness among the world’s poor who eat little more than rice. (Giving credit where credit’s due, golden rice was developed with aid from the Rockefeller Foundation.)

The “Nazi” concerns floated by the Green Left have proven more theoretical than actual. Greenpeace has long claimed GM foods increase allergies; however, the World Health Organization – hardly a corporate, capitalist shill – concluded, “No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.” Although six EU nations ban GM foods, Jaap Satter, a senior policy adviser at the Dutch Agriculture Ministry, has said, “You cannot say anymore that there is a scientific reason to be against genetic modification.” The National Research Council summed up the situation: “no conceptual distinction exists between generic modification of plants and microorganisms by classical methods or by molecular techniques that modify DNA and transfer genes.”

Some environmentalists seem concerned the foods will be too successful at feeding the poor. Al Gore has worried, “The most lasting impact of biotechnology on the food supply may come not from something going wrong, but from all going right…we’re far more likely to accidentally drown ourselves in a sea of excess grain.” Given the environmentalist movement’s hatred of population – best exemplified by Obama Science Czar John Holdren’s justification of compulsory abortion in the United States – this may be the real locus of their disdain.

So deep is the Green Left’s hatred of GM foods that even an organizations Gates founded has given genetically modified food a chilly reception. “The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa was established by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation” and the Rockefeller Foundation in 2006 “with the objective of improving agriculture in Africa.” However, its leader, former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, vowed in 2007: “We in the alliance will not incorporate GMOs [genetically modified organisms] in our programmes. We shall work with farmers using traditional seeds.”

The scare tactics and shunning of American and Euro-socialist leftists is theoretical and faulty – but their mania has reaped a deadly harvest among the world’s most vulnerable people.

Let Them Eat Twigs

In 2002, Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa refused to accept tons of U.S. food aid for his starving nation, because the aid contained genetically modified food (maize, specifically). “Simply because my people are hungry, that is no justification to give them poison, to give them food that is intrinsically dangerous to their health,” he said. The deluded president continued, “I will not allow Zambians to be turned into guinea pigs no matter the levels of hunger in the country.”

The levels of hunger were staggering. Nearly one-third of Zambia’s 10 million people faced famine. Some 14 million Africans faced starvation region-wide. Nonetheless, the president privately upbraided officials in the UN World Food Programme for distributing GM foods, which fed 125,000 people in five camps. The WFP reported some impoverished Zambians “resorted to eating little more than twigs and ash from the fire in a brown soupy concoction.” Desperate, rural villagers broke into the palace where the stockpiles were rotting and stole 2,000 bags of maize.

In response, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in Johannesburg in 2002, signed a “statement of solidarity” with Zambia. Charlie Kronick of Greenpeace went further, alleging the humanitarian aid constituted a sick capitalist ploy. “There is a constant drip of pressure from the U.S. government and biotech industry to make sure Africa is softened up for GM,” he theorized. “Europe is closed to them and they need a market for it.”

Others offered more than ideological support. Zimbabwe joined the boycott, preventing GM grain’s importation. Angola followed suit in 2004. Lesotho and Mozambique milled all such grain so it would not be planted and “infect” other crops.

Not all were limited to the EU and Africa. In 2004, Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez passed “possibly…the most sweeping restrictions on transgenic crops in the western hemisphere.”

Organic Astroturf

At home, the opposition has been remarkably well-heeled. National Review’s Deroy Murdock found:

In 2001, the 30 leading anti-biotech groups…spent $341.4 million, including Greenpeace USA’s expenditure of $23,748,737, Environmental Defense’s $38,794,150 and the Natural Resources Defense Council’s $41,625,882. Between 1996 and 2001, this crusade’s lavish underwriters included the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation ($11,906,500), the Ford Foundation ($39,978,020) and the Pew Charitable Trusts ($130,996,900).

It also included a large portion of the organic food market. Somehow, this story of an industry trying to spike a competitor did not make MSNBC or the pages of Mother Jones.

Whatever the dangers, the prohibition of GM foods is a moral issue. As Velasio De Paolis of the Pontifical Urban University has said, it is “easy to say no to GM food if your stomach is full.” However misled he is on other issues, Bill Gates deserves credit for standing up against the Green Left on this point.

The question remains, will he do so on the issue that seems closest to his heart: the eradication of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa? In a recent speech on the topic Gates admitted, “two tools helped to bring the death rate down: One was killing the mosquitoes with DDT.” Before Rachel Carson’s crusade – based entirely on scientific theories that never panned out – DDT use had nearly eradicated malaria. Now, according to one report, “there are approximately 350 to 500 millions cases of malaria, killing close to one million people” annually. “Every day, malaria takes the lives of 2,000 children in Africa alone.” Yet instead of backing DDT use, Gates has sought to find a vaccine.

Ive been wondering what Bill Gates was doing in Antarctica. He goes down there and a big sheet of ice breaks off and then you see articles about it causing global climate change. Next thing was the big 8.8 in Chile.

I want to know how many labs and radio sites have been built and hidden there.

Logged

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

Also this is complete bullshit, any smart billionaire would have a working internet connection in this day and age, lol!

Quote

Yesterday, up popped our buddy Bill on Twitter, saying he was in Antarctica with a decent satellite connection to the Internet—good enough for tweeting at least. But what's he doing down there?

We asked his people, and it turns out, Bill is on vacation. Yep, if you want to know where a guy who can go anywhere (except space) goes on his time off, that's where.

Sadly, though Bill rhapsodizes that "the beauty is amazing," he says he can't upload pics via his satellite connection. Here's hoping for a serious slideshow on Gates Notes when he returns. [Twitter]

Logged

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates told a recent TED conference, an organization which is sponsored by one of the largest toxic waste polluters on the planet, that vaccines need to be used to reduce world population figures in order to solve global warming and lower CO2 emissions.

Stating that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion), we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent.”

Quite how an improvement in health care and vaccines that supposedly save lives would lead to a lowering in global population is an oxymoron, unless Gates is referring to vaccines that sterilize people, which is precisely the same method advocated in White House science advisor John P. Holdren’s 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which calls for a dictatorial “planetary regime” to enforce draconian measures of population reduction via all manner of oppressive techniques, including sterilization.

“I’m not sure what the nothing-to-see-here explanation is for Bill Gates’ theory that “new vaccines” can help lower the population of the world,” points out the Cryptogon blog, “But I thought about the incidents from the 1990s where the World Health Organization was providing a “tetanus vaccine” to poor girls and women (and just poor girls and women) that contained human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). For those who don’t want to delve into that, in short, it was a World Health Organization experiment; a test of a vaccine against pregnancy.”

After presenting an equation that included the number of people on the planet and CO2 emissions, Gates said, “Probably one of these numbers is going to get pretty near to zero.”

Later in the presentation, Gates mentions picking a vaccine, “which is something I love,” that would be used to lower global CO2 emissions.

He also advocates pouring more money into the global warming scam by way of the United Nations, as well as a “CO2 tax” and cap and trade, while making it clear that the developed world would have to reduce its living standards by cutting back on essential services that generate CO2.

Gates said that a 20 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions was necessary by 2020, a 50 per cent reduction by 2050, and ultimately that there had to be zero CO2 emissions globally, a measure that would completely reverse hundreds of years of technological progress and return man to the agrarian age, all in the name of preventing an alleged miniscule temperature increase that has been proven to be based on fraudulent data models in light of the Climategate scandal.

One of Gates’ proposals for reducing CO2 emissions is the use of biofuels, which as a new report highlights, has resulted in millions of acres of forests being destroyed, which ultimately means a net increase in CO2 emissions from biofuels when compared to fossil fuels, not to mention the massive devastation caused to wildlife.

As we have documented, a CO2 reduction of 50-80 per cent, not to mention 100 per cent, would inflict a new great depression in the United States, reducing GDP by 6.9 percent – a figure comparable with the economic meltdown of 1929 and 1930.

Additionally, the “post-industrial revolution” being proposed by Gates and his ilk would lead to massive job losses.

The implementation of so-called “green jobs” in other countries has devastated economies and cost millions of jobs. As the Seattle Times reported back in June, Spain’s staggering unemployment rate of over 18 per cent was partly down to massive job losses as a result of attempts to replace existing industry with wind farms and other forms of alternative energy.

In a so-called “green economy,” “Each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation — sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency — of capital,” states the report.

The fact that Gates would be so open in his call to use vaccines to lower global population (without a word as to the human rights considerations), probably has a lot to do with the audience attending his speech.

The TED organization admits that it is elitist, “in a good way,” and charges a whopping $6,000 dollars membership fee which must be paid by conference attendees. TED also charges nearly $1,000 just for its live conference web stream. The organization’s sponsors include IBM and military-industrial complex kingpin General Electric, which has a notorious history of environmental misdeeds, being ranked fourth-largest corporate producer of air pollution in the United States, with more than 4.4 million pounds per year (2,000 Tonnes) of toxic chemicals released into the air. GE is also a major contributor to the toxic waste problem, rendering its sponsorship of an organization that claims to be seeking solutions to environmental problems completely hypocritical.

Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Here's my take on what Gates MAY have meant by that statement... By improving vaccines and healthcare you make people healthier (if you believe vaccines actually work). If you make people healthier then that increases the standard of living. Increasing the standard of living will reduce poverty and by reducing poverty you reduce unwanted pregnancy... Now don't get me wrong. I don't trust Bill Gates' intentions for a second, but I don't think this particular statement is some double speak admission to mass genocide.

Here's my take on what Gates MAY have meant by that statement... By improving vaccines and healthcare you make people healthier (if you believe vaccines actually work). If you make people healthier then that increases the standard of living. Increasing the standard of living will reduce poverty and by reducing poverty you reduce unwanted pregnancy... Now don't get me wrong. I don't trust Bill Gates' intentions for a second, but I don't think this particular statement is some double speak admission to mass genocide.

He clearly stated that his whole presentation was about CO2=PSEC. People, services per person, Energy per service, and CO2 per service.

If you make people healthier and more productive then according to his theory CO2 would INCREASE.

He wants CO2 to become Zero.

He said, one of these numbers will have to become zero. People in the audience laughed.

He clearly stated that his whole presentation was about CO2=PSEC. People, services per person, Energy per service, and CO2 per service.If you make people healthier and more productive then according to his theory CO2 would INCREASE.He wants CO2 to become Zero.He said, one of these numbers will have to become zero. People in the audience laughed.He didn't stutter. He said we could lower population by vaccines.This is big and needs to be exposed now.

Here's what he said exactly: "First we've got population. Now, the world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent, but there we see an increase of about 1.3."First of all he clumped vaccines, health care, and repoductive health services together. Second of all, as explain in my previous post, he didn't neccesarily mean that vaccines could DIRECTLY reduce population. He could have meant indirectly by reducing poverty and eventually unwanted pregnancies or something along those lines.

Here's what he said exactly: "First we've got population. Now, the world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent, but there we see an increase of about 1.3."First of all he clumped vaccines, health care, and repoductive health services together. Second of all, as explain in my previous post, he didn't neccesarily mean that vaccines could DIRECTLY reduce population. He could have meant indirectly by reducing poverty and eventually unwanted pregnancies or something along those lines.

since when did Bill Gates deserve the benefit of the doubt? I mean we have plenty of evidence prior to this to indicate he agrees with the eugenics agenda so why are you trying to make excuses for him?

since when did Bill Gates deserve the benefit of the doubt? I mean we have plenty of evidence prior to this to indicate he agrees with the eugenics agenda so why are you trying to make excuses for him?

I'm not making excuses for him. I already said I don't trust Bill Gates. But taking a statement he made and misinterpreting it does not help the cause. It just makes us look like conspiracy theorists.

President-elect Barack Obama has signalled a new era for science in US policy with several key appointees known for their interest in science and technology in developing countries.

John P. Holdren, a physicist who has been active for many years on a wide range of policy issues from nuclear non-proliferation to climate change, has been nominated head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and presidential science adviser.

Jane Lubchenco, an internationally recognised ecologist and former president for the International Council for Science (ICSU), has been asked to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a body whose responsibilities include a major role in international negotiations on environmental and climate change issues.

And Harold Varmus, a former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and chair of the scientific board of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's Grand Challenges of Global Health, has - together with Holdren and genome specialist Eric Lander - been appointed co-chair of the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology.

In announcing the new appointments last Saturday (20 December), Obama stressed that he would make decisions "on fact and science rather than ideology", an explicit rejection of the administration of President George W. Bush, who has been widely criticised for doing the opposite on topics from stem cells to climate change.

Solving 21st century problems

Holdren is currently Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, and director of the Science, Technology and Public Policy Program in the school's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Both he and Lubchenco are former presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and both have been strong advocates of US scientists taking a robust role in international affairs, including in particular the impact of science and technology in developing countries.

Commenting on his nomination, Holdren said in a statement that "None of the great interlinked challenges of our time - the economy, energy, environment, health, security and the particular vulnerabilities of the poor to shortfalls in all of these - can be solved without insights and advances from the physical sciences, the life sciences and engineering".

His appointment has been widely welcomed by the scientific community, who felt that their views on important global topics were increasingly ignored in Washington. It has also been welcomed by climate change activists, who see it as a sign of a sea-change in the administration's attitude towards international negotiations, including the need to engage developing countries.

At the Harvard Kennedy School, for example, Holdren and colleagues have developed substantial programmes of cooperation with both China and India on developing cleaner, more efficient energy technologies to address the related challenges of climate change, oil dependence and sustainable development.

Holdren himself was a coordinating lead author of the 2007 report of the UN Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change and Sustainable Development.

Unique global expertise

"Holdren will bring to the office unique expertise on how to use science and technology to promote global understanding," says his Belfer colleague Calestous Juma, who is Professor of the Practice of International Development at the Kennedy School.

"More specifically, he has devoted a large part of his life to exploring how technological innovation can help improve wellbeing in developing countries. His expertise on this these issues is well-aligned with the diplomatic outlook that President Obama has promised to project to the world."

Jane Lubchenko has been asked to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Lubchenco has also been welcomed as someone who, both through her ICSU position and her other international activities, has increased scientific participation in programmes throughout the UN system.

Addressing the UN Commission on Sustainable Development in New York in 2004, for example, she welcomed calls by delegations for more science and technology as major tools for meeting the Millennium Development Goals.

"Scientific and technological information and knowledge are central to the achievement of these goals," Lubchenco said. "Understanding this centrality as well as the urgency of the problems, the S&T community has actively embraced the immense challenge of providing and sharing the knowledge needed to achieve the goals set."

She urged governments to strengthen their support for the involvement of their scientific communities in international and coordinated research programmes, especially those that address water, sanitation, human settlements and other MDG-relevant topics.

Veteran global health campaigner

Harold Varmus, who won the Nobel prize for medicine in 1989 for his studies on the genetic basis of cancer, is currently the president and chief executive officer of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre in New York.

Varmus served on the WHO's Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, and has long campaigned for greater attention to be given by the US biomedical community to the health needs of developing countries, for example in advocating greater international efforts to combat malaria and HIV/AIDS.

In a recent speech at the NIH's Fogarty International Center, for example, Varmus urged Congress to double the amount of money that the US spends on global health and suggested that this effort should be highlighted as "a pillar of US foreign policy".

Varmus is also widely known as an energetic proponent of the need for open access to scientific journals. In particular, he is a co-founder and chair of the board of directors at the Public Library of Science, which currently publishes seven open access scientific journals.

America's richest people meet to discuss ways of tackling a 'disastrous' environmental, social and industrial threatJohn Harlow, Los Angeles Recommend? (56) SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.

These members, along with Gates, have given away more than £45 billion since 1996 to causes ranging from health programmes in developing countries to ghetto schools nearer to home.

They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University, in Manhattan on May 5. The informal afternoon session was so discreet that some of the billionaires’ aides were told they were at “security briefings”.

Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. “We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,” he said.

Some details were emerging this weekend, however. The billionaires were each given 15 minutes to present their favourite cause. Over dinner they discussed how they might settle on an “umbrella cause” that could harness their interests.

The issues debated included reforming the supervision of overseas aid spending to setting up rural schools and water systems in developing countries. Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.

This could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.

Gates, 53, who is giving away most of his fortune, argued that healthier families, freed from malaria and extreme poverty, would change their habits and have fewer children within half a generation.

At a conference in Long Beach, California, last February, he had made similar points. “Official projections say the world’s population will peak at 9.3 billion [up from 6.6 billion today] but with charitable initiatives, such as better reproductive healthcare, we think we can cap that at 8.3 billion,” Gates said then.

Patricia Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gives more than £2 billion a year to good causes, attended the Rockefeller summit. She said the billionaires met to “discuss how to increase giving” and they intended to “continue the dialogue” over the next few months.

Another guest said there was “nothing as crude as a vote” but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.

“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest. “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.”

Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said.

ASMARA, Eritrea -- The “richest man in the world,” Microsoft’s Bill Gates, recently announced that he was making a $10 billion donation towards finding vaccines to prevent some of the world’s worst diseases.

Malaria is the number one killer in Africa. From what I’m hearing about $1 billion of BIll Gates donation/tax write-off is for research to find a vaccine to prevent malaria.

The African country of Eritrea, where I live, has reduced malaria mortality by 85 percent in the last seven years. How? By using basic public health methods. By distributing pesticide treated mosquito nets and organizing the pesticide retreatment every three months of mosquito nets. By habitat eradication. And by community medical clinics for immediate treatment.

Malaria is a parasite-based disease noted for its variety and quick development of resistance to medication. Any “vaccine,” if even a billion dollars is able to produce such, would have a limited lifetime and new, patented medications would have to be bought by Africa’s poor every few years.

So “donating” a billion dollars to develop a malaria “vaccine” could turn into tens of billions of dollars in drug sales in Africa alone, and Bill Gates, through his drug company investments, will quietly pocket more African blood money.

All the while a very successful malaria mortality reduction program is operating, effectively, safely and affordably, in Eritrea.

Why isn’t this being publicized internationally? Could it be that such a program is not going to put billions into the pockets of the drug lords of Western finance?

Bill Gates and other assorted financial terrorists through their control of the Western media and “aid” organizations are suppressing implementation of a successful malaria mortality program while investing in a malaria drug addiction for Africa’s people.

These financial terrorists are perfectly willing to see millions die in Africa while they search for their next highly profitable “wonder drug” to cure malaria, all the while deliberately ignoring, worse, engineering a white out/cover up of what could prevent millions of deaths, let alone uncounted suffering.

And HIV/AIDS, Africa’s N0.2 killer? Bill Gates is said to be providing over a billion dollars for research into developing an AIDS vaccine. AIDS, a virus based disease, has already shown to have varieties and to have developed resistance to the medications developed to treat it. Like the flu vaccine, a new AIDS vaccine would most likely have to be developed every few years to combat the latest strain of the AIDS virus; another gold mine of new, patented medications for sale to Africa’s sick.

Eritrea has reduced HIV/AIDS infection rates by 40 percent, according to Physicians for Peace, and is the only country in Africa to reduce HIV/AIDS. How? By using public health education promoting condom use everywhere in the country. Over a billion for a “vaccine” that may never work while an effective program that can reduce HIV/AIDS infection by 40 percent, safely and affordably can be immediately implemented?

Remember, Western billionaires didn’t get that way by being out to really help anyone. Millions die in Africa as the Western drug lords and their financial terrorist stockholders reap their billions in blood money. All the while real heroes in the Eritrean public health service struggle to save people’s lives.

So don’t believe that BIll Gates is up to any good when he donates $10 billion to vaccine research, just the opposite. And don’t forget that as far at the USA is concerned in Africa, no good deed goes unpunished, and, once again, Eritrea is subject to UN Security Council sanctions.

Stay tuned to Online Journal for more news from Africa’s Horn that the so called free press in the west refuses to cover.

Thomas C. Mountain was, in a former life, an educator, activist and alternative medicine practitioner in the USA. Email thomascmountain at yahoo.com.

ASMARA, Eritrea -- The “richest man in the world,” Microsoft’s Bill Gates, recently announced that he was making a $10 billion donation towards finding vaccines to prevent some of the world’s worst diseases.

Malaria is the number one killer in Africa. From what I’m hearing about $1 billion of BIll Gates donation/tax write-off is for research to find a vaccine to prevent malaria.

The African country of Eritrea, where I live, has reduced malaria mortality by 85 percent in the last seven years. How? By using basic public health methods. By distributing pesticide treated mosquito nets and organizing the pesticide retreatment every three months of mosquito nets. By habitat eradication. And by community medical clinics for immediate treatment.

Great Article, I remember researching the malaria statistics when my Mom was going back home (To Eritrea) & I was surprised that Eritrea was one of the few countries that didn't have outbreak warnings & also that no vaccinations were needed to travel. But she didn't listen to me & got a ton of vaccines & the drug that supposedly helps prevent Malaria.

Microsoft's Bill Gates, global politics newest kid on the block, showed up in Davos, Switzerland at the World Economic Forum this week.

Flanked by the likes of former U.S. President Bill Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Irish rocker Bono for photo ops, Gates in a casual sweater and slacks is looking more and more like an aged Harry Potter.

Politicians at Davos, some of the same ones who dined on "buckets of caviar", lobster and filet mignon at the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development while children were starving in slums a few miles away, waxed eloquent on the state of world poverty.

Blair called Africa's plight "a scar on the conscience of the world".

"Millions of children die in Africa who shouldn't die, who it would be very easy to save," Gates said. "The fact that we don't apply the resources to the known cures or to finding better cures is really…the most scandalous issue of our time."

On Monday, Gates pledged $750 million to support immunization programs in developing countries. Problem is the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunization (GAVI), which the Microsoft billionaire helped set up, leans heavily on UN agencies such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF. It is these very organizations who keep the children of third world countries from the relief of DEET-based products as protection against deadly malaria.

Among 10.5 children under age five who died In 2002, --1.4 million died from diseases that could have been prevented by vaccines.

Gates' philanthropy goes mainly for United Nations initiatives.

In 2000, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded a $57 million grant to the United Nations Population (UNFPA) Fund. While the grant was ostensibly to fight AIDS among African youth, UNFPA also used some of the funds for its reproductive health-abortion agenda.

The UNFPA has been criticized for its ruthless disregard for Third World nation's sovereignty, cultural traditions and religious beliefs in pursuit of global de-population to protect western interests.

In an in-depth interview with Bill Moyers in May of 2003, Gates named the inspiration behind his funding of pro-abortion population control measures.

It seems that it came from Daddy.

"When I was growing up, my parents were always involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that. And it's so fascinating. At the dinner table my parents were very good at sharing the things that they were doing. And almost treating us like adults, talking about that," Gates told Moyers.

Gates, who rubs shoulders with Ted Turner, Mikhail Gorbachev, Maurice Strong and Company, seems to be mesmerized by the UN.

A staunch believer of the one world order Pooh-bahs' unfounded Malthusian fear of overpopulation, he's in good company.

Among his recent coups among the global set, Gates last December filled the current vacancy left by the July death of Warren Buffett's wife, on Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

A longtime shareholder in the company, Gates is a personal friend of Buffett's. The pair became close friends after meeting at a social event in Seattle in 1991, and they regularly meet online to play bridge.

In Davos, rock star Bono heaped praise on Gates, saying, "He is a brainy man and he thinks extreme poverty is stupid."

Surely extreme poverty is far more tragic than it is stupid.

As one of the planet's most globe trotting social activists, Bono should exert his influence to convince Gates to fly solo.

Canada Free Press founding editor Most recent by Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. Her work has appeared on Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, Glenn Beck. Judi can be reached at: judi@canadafreepress.com

Here are Bill Gates' verbatim words:"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

if you are born into poverty, you don't have what it takes to live any other way, and there is a vaccine to make sure your undesirable DNA doesn't taint our future, so you'd better shut up about the new clinics you thought you were getting and take your shot (which costs more than a nurse's weekly wages in some countries no doubt, if they are paying full price).

Then if their own governments won't pay for the shots, some genocidal billionaire will take up the slack

Logged

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

Here are Bill Gates' verbatim words:"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

And the yuppies will rationalize this like everything else. There might be a little initial shock and then instead making them want to ask questions of the person who says these things, they'll smugly question the person presenting the information to them. Why do you think he meant the plain meaning of what he said instead of my new mentally gymnastic safe explanation?

Logged

"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck." -Frederick Douglass

Remember, the premise is that population is a problem. Here is an old article written in 2005. Its a good one.

Newspapers have become overpopulated, so to speak, with warnings about human overpopulation. Such warnings have been issued regularly for decades - even centuries - with consistently incorrect predictions. On the first Earth Day, Paul Ehrlich's 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb, was widely quoted. He predicted that by 1985, the "population explosion" would lead to world famine, the death of the oceans, a reduction in life expectancy to 42 years, and the wasting of the Midwest into a vast desert. He was about as accurate as Malthus himself, the Englishman who, in 1798, predicted catastrophic food shortages that never came.

The population doomsayers usually offer the solution of global government - BIG government - to determine, in Gaylord Nelson's words, "the optimum number of people." Ironically, where there is famine, the problem usually is not an excess of people but an excess of government, which leads to gross misallocation and misuse of resources as corrupt bureaucrats or dictators seek power more than the welfare their subjects.

Just what is "overpopulation"? How does one determine when a nation is overpopulated? There are no clear demographic indicators for this fuzzy notion. If population density is used as the criterion, then Bermuda and Monaco would be crisis zones, while Nigeria and Ethiopia should be paradise. Other factors, like population growth rate, also provide metrics riddled with inconsistencies. Yes, there are places where people lack resources and go hungry, but eliminating neighbors is not the solution to the condition of poverty. If we are worried about those who go hungry, let us recognize that the hungry are suffering from poverty, not from overpopulation.

But isn't poverty directly related to population size or to rapid population growth? Absolutely not. The population control crowd is now embarrassed by the light of scientific study into the relationship between population and economic development. A wide variety of recent economic studies on this issue have shattered the myth that population growth is bad for a nation's economy. Though rarely reported by the media, this has led to a remarkable revolution in the scientific (not the political) community. This scientific revolution is documented by Dr. Julian Simon, Univ. of Maryland, in Jay Lehr's book Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns, Van Nostrand Reinhold Publ., 1992. Now the real scientific debate centers on whether population growth has a neutral or positive effect, but there clearly is no significant negative effect.

Fascinating case studies can be found in pairs of similar nations having centrally-planned and market economies, such as China and Taiwan or the former East and West Germany. Though the centrally-planned nations began with similar resources and similar birth rates, and even lower population densities, than their market-based counterparts, the market economies prospered, in spite of the higher "population pressure." Even with high population density, enterprise-based economies flourish while centrally-planned nations stagnate and become addicted to foreign aid. The real problem is not excess people, but excess government.

How can the "obvious" logic of the population control lobby be wrong? Because the resources of the planet are not a fixed pie that dwindle with each birth. The resources are whatever we can make of this planet - or solar system - and it takes the work of human beings to transform raw materials and energy into useful resources. Humans are not a liability, but a resource that we need! On this topic, I recommend the work of Drs. C. Maurice and C. Smithson of Texas A&M, The Doomsday Myth, Hoover Instit. Press, Stanford Univ., 1984. (This gem will help you have a lot more fun and success in debates with the doomsaying crowd.)

Our technological society, fueled by the precious resource of abundant working, thinking human beings, has enabled crop lands to skyrocket in productivity and has enabled humans to live vastly longer than ever before. The resulting large population, living at a higher standard than ever before, breathing cleaner air and drinking purer water, is a cause for celebration, not for doomsaying. Once-neglected resources - solar energy, sand, radioactive minerals, salt water, carbon dioxide, the vast interior mantle of the earth itself - may provide the foundations for future economies beyond anything we have today. The future could be bright, unless we surrender what's left of our free economy for a global, centrally-planned economy in which political elitists rule and decide how many of us must live to achieve "the optimum number of human beings."

Population density: comparisonsThe following table compares population density with life expectancy and income for a variety of countries. An examination of the facts may challenge commonly repeated assumptions about the need to reduce population size. The data below are extracted from a table by Gale Lyle Pooley, Environmentalism and the Gospel, Analytica, Sun Valley, Idaho, 1995, p. 92 (note: Pooley's excellent and heavily documented book was written for an LDS audience). Pooley's sources were the 1992 World Population Data Sheet from the Population Reference Bureau, Inc., Washington, D.C., and the 1993 World Almanac, U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Economic Analysis. You can obtain similar data yourself using the The CIA World Factbook.

The high population density of China pales in comparison with that of prosperous Taiwan or rich and clean Switzerland. New Jersey also has a much higher population density than China, but only the most hardened would advocate forced sterilizations and forced abortions to save New Jersey from collapse. Having been in Switzerland, New Jersey, and China, I can say that the quality of life (environmental quality, income, life expectancy, and health care) is vastly superior in the first two, where the population density is higher. What's the difference? The political and economic systems must be taken into account. If a system hinders rather than rewards human productivity and impedes efficient utilization of resources through central planning, then the problem may not be due to numbers of people.

But could it be that we are running out of space? Walk through New York, Calcutta, or Hong Kong and experience the incredible crowding: surely there just isn't room for all these people. Yes, there are crowded places in the world. There are strong economic and social incentives for people to cluster together. If Manhattan were spread out over the state of Montana, it's economic power would be greatly diminished (and a lot of moose would be mugged). Yet leave these population centers, and we find a remarkably unpopulated planet.

How much land does it take to hold 6 billion people? To give you an idea, consider the small nation of Japan. It has about 143,000 square miles of area. One square mile has 5280 * 5280 = 27.9 million square feet. Japan has a total of about 4 trillion square feet, enough to give each person of the earth 670 square feet. If we housed people in families of four in simple two-level buildings (8 people per building, one family of four per level), each building could be on a lot of over 5300 square feet. (Of course, I've ignored that fact that many parts of Japan would be unsuitable for dwelling places, and I've neglected the land needed for roads, parks, schools, etc.) In a land area as small as Japan, the entire population of the earth could be housed on lots of 5300 square feet, with 8 people per lot. That's smaller than the typical American lot of about 8000 square feet, but it's not unbearably small.If we insisted on American standards, with only 4 people per lot of at least 8,000 square feet, then Gale Lyle Pooley shows that an area the size of Texas plus Nevada would be adequate (op. cit., p. 93). That would make those two states less attractive, perhaps, but it would leave the rest of the world for food production, animal reserves, nature movies, Woodstock festivals, or whatever. In terms of the real resources of this planet, we are not overpopulated.

Declining Fertility RatesA remarkable phenomenon has been observed in the past two centuries: a sustained decline in fertility, yielding long-term reductions in family size in many countries, particularly in Europe. But in the past few decades the trend has also been seen on other countries like Japan, Cyprus, Puerto Rico and Costa Rica (Nicholas Eberstadt, "Population, Food, and Income: Global Trends in the Twentieth Century," in The True State of the Planet, ed. Ronald Bailey, New York: The Free Press, 1995, pp. 7-47, esp. pp. 15-16). Total fertility rate (TFR), the average number of births per woman during childbearing years, has been tracked by the United Nations and shows a consistent decline in the past few decades for both developed and less developed countries. Around 1950 TFR was around 5, but by 1995 dropped to about 3 -- a 40% decline (Eberstadt, pp. 18-19). Some countries have TFR rates below the replacement level of 2.1, so that the population of those countries is currently shrinking (this is true of sixty-one countries according to the article "Total Fertility Rates" at Overpopulation.com). In fact, officials at the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs in the United Nations have expressed concern over the implications of the low fertility rates, as discussed by Austin Russe in the online article, "United Nations Warns About Declining Population." The UN report can be found at http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm. See also "U.N. Study Ends Overpopulation Fears."

Sub-Saharan Africa, unlike most of the rest of the world, has not yet shown the dramatic decline in fertility. Nicholas Eberstadt, a respected demographer and a Visiting Fellow at Harvard's Center for Population Studies, discusses and documents these trends (ibid.), and notes that it is impossible to predict when or if Africa will show a similar drop in TFR, as it was impossible to predict that other countries would show that trend. Who would have guessed that over a 25-year period, the TFR for Thailand would drop by more than 50%, for Colombia would drop by 60% and for Hong Kong by 75%? But the continued decline in TFR, probably associated which changes in attitudes about families, contraception, and economic factors, challenges the position of overpopulation alarmists, who rely on simple extrapolations based on the assumption that current growth rates and current resources won't change. This kind of thinking have led Malthus, Paul Ehrlich, and many others to make failed predictions of massive catastrophes that seem silly in retrospect.

Clearly, human population has been increasing in recent years. How can this be if fertility has declined so dramatically? The obvious but often ignored answer is that current population growth is largely due to the increase in human longevity. As Eberstadt explains (ibid., p. 21):

At the start of our century, a rough guess would place global life expectancy at birth at about 30 years. By the early 1990s, global life expectancy is thought to have risen to about 64 years, more than doubling over these nine decades. Since it is further believed that life expectancy in earlier times could not have been much lower than 20 over any long period without raising the prospect of extinction, it would seem that over three-fourths of the total improvement in human longevity since the origin of our species has been achieved since 1900. This worldwide health explosion explains the global "population explosion." Rapid population growth commenced not because human beings suddenly started breeding like rabbits but rather because they finally stopped dying like flies.

Contributing to the longevity of humans has been the increasingly abundant food resources over the past century. Eberstadt reports that in the postwar era, the real price of food grains has been gradually and significantly declining (ibid., p. 28). A World Bank study published in 1988 showed that the real price of food grains dropped by over 40% in the twentieth century (Enzo R. Grilli and Maw Chen Yang, "Primary Commodity PRices, Manufactured Goods Prices, and Terms of Trade: What the Long Run Shows," World Bank Economic Review, Vol. 2, No. 1 (1988), pp. 1-47, as cited by Eberstadt, ibid., p. 28), and prices have continued to drop since that study. If there were too many mouths to feed, the price of food would be increasing, but in spite of the global population tripling in the past century, food has become less scarce.

There has been famine, but it is typically associated with repressive governments, not a scarcity of resources. Eberstadt (p. 40) gives key examples:

The Soviet famine of 1934, for example, was the consequence of the official collectivation campaign in the Ukraine. Stalin specifically intended to use starvation as a weapon to break Ukrainian resistance to his policies, which is why the historian Robert COnquest has termed the hunger a "terror-famine." The Bengal famine of 1943 took place at a time when local harvests were quite good but when British officials, fearing a possible Japanese invasion from neighboring Burma, had systematically removed local grain supplies. The Chinese famine followed immediately upon Mao's Great Leap Forward, a collectivation campaign that inadvertently shattered the agricultural system in a low-income population. Mass starvation erupted in Ethiopia in the 1980s after its communist government inflicted a series of harsh and injurious policies on a population whose living standard was typically only slightly above the subsistence level.

In each of these instances, the reckless or intentionally punitive policies embraced by presiding government would have been expected to result in massive loss of life, no matter what the local fertility level or population growth rate.

Were it not for excesses of corrupt and excessive governments and the wars and afflictions they bring, the populations of the world would have much cause to rejoice. Humans are living longer. Disease is being eradicated. Food is cheaper and more available than ever. This is wonderful news, but for doomsayers, it's bad news when humans live longer, better lives. The doomsayers want us to panic and put them in charge of a new world, so they can rebuild the world in their image, running our lives and grudgingly passing out resources that, under their guidance, would surely become increasingly scarce. It's time to reject their agenda and move forward with sanity, not fear.

2005 Update: A fascinating new article by a prominent environmentalist points out what should be obvious: the overpopulation scare was just a scare, and now it's time to move on. I refer to "Environmental Heresies" by Stewart Brand, the founder of The Farmers Almanac, printed in MIT Technology Review, May 2005. He makes the following points:

For 50 years, the demographers in charge of human population projections for the United Nations released hard numbers that substantiated environmentalists' greatest fears about indefinite exponential population increase. For a while, those projections proved fairly accurate. However, in the 1990s, the U.N. started taking a closer look at fertility patterns, and in 2002, it adopted a new theory that shocked many demographers: human population is leveling off rapidly, even precipitously, in developed countries, with the rest of the world soon to follow. Most environmentalists still haven't got the word. Worldwide, birthrates are in free fall. Around one-third of countries now have birthrates below replacement level (2.1 children per woman) and sinking. Nowhere does the downward trend show signs of leveling off. Nations already in a birth dearth crisis include Japan, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Russia--whose population is now in absolute decline and is expected to be 30 percent lower by 2050. On every part of every continent and in every culture (even Mormon), birthrates are headed down. They reach replacement level and keep on dropping. It turns out that population decrease accelerates downward just as fiercely as population increase accelerated upward, for the same reason. Any variation from the 2.1 rate compounds over time.

That's great news for environmentalists (or it will be when finally noticed), but they need to recognize what caused the turnaround. The world population growth rate actually peaked at 2 percent way back in 1968, the very year my old teacher Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb. The world's women didn't suddenly have fewer kids because of his book, though. They had fewer kids because they moved to town.

Cities are population sinks-always have been. Although more children are an asset in the countryside, they're a liability in the city. A global tipping point in urbanization is what stopped the population explosion. As of this year, 50 percent of the world's population lives in cities, with 61 percent expected by 2030. In 1800 it was 3 percent; in 1900 it was 14 percent.

The environmentalist aesthetic is to love villages and despise cities. My mind got changed on the subject a few years ago by an Indian acquaintance who told me that in Indian villages the women obeyed their husbands and family elders, pounded grain, and sang. But, the acquaintance explained, when Indian women immigrated to cities, they got jobs, started businesses, and demanded their children be educated. They became more independent, as they became less fundamentalist in their religious beliefs. Urbanization is the most massive and sudden shift of humanity in its history. Environmentalists will be rewarded if they welcome it and get out in front of it. In every single region in the world, including the U.S., small towns and rural areas are emptying out. The trees and wildlife are returning. Now is the time to put in place permanent protection for those rural environments. Meanwhile, the global population of illegal urban squatters--which Robert Neuwirth's book Shadow Cities already estimates at a billion--is growing fast. Environmentalists could help ensure that the new dominant human habitat is humane and has a reduced footprint of overall environmental impact.

Bill Gates talks about ‘vaccines to reduce population’ author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order by F. William EngdahlMarch 4, 2010

Microsoft founder and one of the world’s wealthiest men, Bill Gates, projects an image of a benign philanthropist using his billions via his (tax exempt) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to tackle diseases, solve food shortages in Africa and alleviate poverty. In a recent conference in California, Gates reveals a less public agenda of his philanthropy—population reduction, otherwise known as eugenics.

Gates made his remarks to the invitation-only Long Beach, California TED2010 Conference, in a speech titled, “Innovating to Zero!.” Along with the scientifically absurd proposition of reducing manmade CO2 emissions worldwide to zero by 2050, approximately four and a half minutes into the talk, Gates declares, "First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."1 (author’s emphasis).

In plain English, one of the most powerful men in the world states clearly that he expects vaccines to be used to reduce population growth. When Bill Gates speaks about vaccines, he speaks with authority. In January 2010 at the elite Davos World Economic Forum, Gates announced his foundation would give $10 billion (circa €7.5 billion) over the next decade to develop and deliver new vaccines to children in the developing world. 2

The primary focus of his multi-billion dollar Gates Foundation is vaccinations, especially in Africa and other underdeveloped countries. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a founding member of the GAVI Alliance (Global Alliance for Vaccinations and Immunization) in partnership with the World Bank, WHO and the vaccine industry. The goal of GAVI is to vaccinate every newborn child in the developing world.

Now that sounds like noble philanthropic work. The problem is that the vaccine industry has been repeatedly caught dumping dangerous—meaning unsafe because untested or proven harmful—vaccines onto unwitting Third World populations when they cannot get rid of the vaccines in the West. 3 Some organizations have suggested that the true aim of the vaccinations is to make people sicker and even more susceptible to disease and premature death.4

Dumping toxins on the Third World

In the aftermath of the most recent unnecessary Pandemic declaration of a global H1N1 swine flu emergency, industrial countries were left sitting on hundreds of millions of doses of untested vaccines. They decided to get rid of the embarrassing leftover drugs by handing them over to the WHO which in turn plans to dump them for free on select poor countries. France has given 91 million of the 94 million doses the Sarkozy government bought from the pharma giants; Britain gave 55 million of its 60 million doses. The story for Germany and Norway is similar.5

As Dr. Thomas Jefferson, an epidemiologist with the Cochrane Research Center in Rome noted, “Why do they give the vaccines to the developing countries at all? The pandemic has been called off in most parts of the world. The greatest threat in poor countries right now is heart and circulatory diseases while the virus figures at the bottom of the list. What is the medical reason for donating 180 million doses?” 6 As well, flu is a minor problem in countries with abundant sunshine, and it turned out that the feared H1N1 Pandemic “new great plague” was the mildest flu on record.

The pharmaceutical vaccine makers do not speak about the enormous health damage from infant vaccination including autism and numerous neuro-muscular deformities that have been traced back to the toxic adjuvants and preservatives used in most vaccines. Many vaccines, especially multi-dose vaccines that are made more cheaply for sale to the Third World, contain something called Thimerosal (Thiomersol in the EU), a compound (sodium ethylmercurithiosalicylate), containing some 50% mercury, used as a preservative.

In July 1999 the US’ National Vaccine Information Center declared in a press release that, "The cumulative effects of ingesting mercury can cause brain damage." The same month, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) alerted the public about the possible health effects associated with thimerosal-containing vaccines. They strongly recommended that thimerosal be removed from vaccines as soon as possible. Under the directive of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, the Food and Drug Administration also determined that infants who received several thimerosal-containing vaccines may be receiving mercury exposure over and above the recommended federal guidelines.7

A new form of eugenics?

Gates’ interest in inducing population reduction among black and other minority populations is not new unfortunately. As I document in my book, Seeds of Destruction,8 since the 1920’s the Rockefeller Foundation had funded the eugenics research in Germany through the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institutes in Berlin and Munich, including well into the Third Reich. They praised the forced sterilization of people by Hirtler Germany, and the Nazi ideas on race “purity.” It was John D. Rockefeller III, a life-long advocate of eugenics, who used his “tax free” foundation money to initiate the population reduction neo-Malthusian movement through his private Population Council in New York beginning in the 1950’s.

The idea of using vaccines to covertly reduce births in the Third World is also not new. Bill Gates’ good friend, David Rockefeller and his Rockefeller Foundation were involved as early as 1972 in a major project together with WHO and others to perfect another “new vaccine.”

The results of the WHO-Rockefeller project were put into mass application on human guinea pigs in the early 1990's. The WHO oversaw massive vaccination campaigns against tetanus in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines. Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization, became suspicious of the motives behind the WHO program and decided to test numerous vials of the vaccine and found them to contain human Chorionic Gonadotrophin, or hCG. That was a curious component for a vaccine designed to protect people against lock-jaw arising from infection with rusty nail wounds or other contact with certain bacteria found in soil. The tetanus disease was indeed, also rather rare. It was also curious because hCG was a natural hormone needed to maintain a pregnancy. However, when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier, it stimulated formation of antibodies against hCG, rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy, a form of concealed abortion. Similar reports of vaccines laced with hCG hormones came from the Philippines and Nicaragua.9

Gates’ ‘Gene Revolution in Africa’

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with David Rockefeller’s Rockefeller Foundation, the creators of the GMO biotechnology, are also financing a project called The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) headed by former UN chief, Kofi Annan. Accepting the role as AGRA head in June 2007 Annan expressed his “gratitude to the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and all others who support our African campaign.” The AGRA board is dominated by people from both the Gates’ and Rockefeller foundations. 10

Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, Syngenta and other major GMO agribusiness giants are reported at the heart of AGRA, using it as a back-door to spread their patented GMO seeds across Africa under the deceptive label, ‘bio-technology,’ a euphemism for genetically engineered patented seeds. The person from the Gates Foundation responsible for its work with AGRA is Dr. Robert Horsch, a 25-year Monsanto GMO veteran who was on the team that developed Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready GMO technologies. His job is reportedly to use Gates’ money to introduce GMO into Africa.11

To date South Africa is the only African country permitting legal planting of GMO crops. In 2003 Burkina Faso authorized GMO trials. In 2005 Kofi Annan’s Ghana drafted bio-safety legislation and key officials expressed their intentions to pursue research into GMO crops. AGRA is being used to create networks of “agro-dealers” across Africa, at first with no mention of GMO seeds or herbicides, in order to have the infrastructure in place to massively introduce GMO.12

GMO, glyphosate and population reduction

GMO crops have never been proven safe for human or animal consumption. Moreover, they are inherently genetically ‘unstable’ as they are an unnatural product of introducing a foreign bacteria such as Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) or other material into the DNA of a given seed to change its traits. Perhaps equally dangerous are the ‘paired’ chemical herbicides sold as a mandatory part of a GMO contract, such as Monsanto’s Roundup, the most widely used such herbicide in the world. It contains highly toxic glyphosate compounds that have been independently tested and proven to exist in toxic concentrations in GMO applications far above that safe for humans or animals. Tests show that tiny amounts of glyphosate compounds would do damage to a human umbilical, embryonic and placental cells in a pregnant woman drinking the ground water near a GMO field.13

One long-standing project of the US Government has been to perfect a genetically-modified variety of corn, the diet staple in Mexico and many other Latin American countries. The corn has been field tested in tests financed by the US Department of Agriculture along with a small California bio-tech company named Epicyte. Announcing his success at a 2001 press conference, the president of Epicyte, Mitch Hein, pointing to his GMO corn plants, announced, “We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies.” 14

Hein explained that they had taken antibodies from women with a rare condition known as immune infertility, isolated the genes that regulated the manufacture of those infertility antibodies, and, using genetic engineering techniques, had inserted the genes into ordinary corn seeds used to produce corn plants. In this manner, in reality they produced a concealed contraceptive embedded in corn meant for human consumption. “Essentially, the antibodies are attracted to surface receptors on the sperm,” said Hein. “They latch on and make each sperm so heavy it cannot move forward. It just shakes about as if it was doing the lambada.” 15 Hein claimed it was a possible solution to world “over-population.” The moral and ethical issues of feeding it to humans in Third World poor countries without their knowing it countries he left out of his remarks.

Spermicides hidden in GMO corn provided to starving Third World populations through the generosity of the Gates’ foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and Kofi Annan’s AGRA or vaccines that contain undisclosed sterilization agents are just two documented cases of using vaccines or GMO seeds to “reduce population.”

And the ‘Good Club’

Gates’ TED2010 speech on zero emissions and population reduction is consistent with a report that appeared in New York City’s ethnic media, Irish.Central.com in May 2009. According to the report, a secret meeting took place on May 5, 2009 at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, President of Rockefeller University, among some of the wealthiest people in America. Investment guru Warren Buffett who in 2006 decided to pool his $30 billion Buffett Foundation into the Gates foundation to create the world’s largest private foundation with some $60 billions of tax-free dollars was present. Banker David Rockefeller was the host.

The exclusive letter of invitation was signed by Gates, Rockefeller and Buffett. They decided to call themselves the “Good Club.” Also present was media czar Ted Turner, billionaire founder of CNN who stated in a 1996 interview for the Audubon nature magazine, where he said that a 95% reduction of world population to between 225-300 million would be “ideal.” In a 2008 interview at Philadelphia’s Temple University, Turner fine-tuned the number to 2 billion, a cut of more than 70% from today’s population. Even less elegantly than Gates, Turner stated, “we have too many people. That’s why we have global warming. We need less people using less stuff (sic).”16

Others attending this first meeting of the Good Club reportedly were: Eli Broad real estate billionaire, New York’s billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Wall Street billionaire and Council on Foreign Relations former head, Peter G. Peterson.

In addition, Julian H. Robertson, Jr., hedge-fund billionaire who worked with Soros attacking the currencies of Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea and the Asian Tigen economies, precipitating the 1997-98 Asia Crisis. Also present at the first session of the Good Club was Patty Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Gates foundation, and John Morgridge of Cisco Systems. The group represented a combined fortune of more than $125 billion. 17

According to reports apparently leaked by one of the attendees, the meeting was held in response to the global economic downturn and the numerous health and environmental crises that are plaguing the globe.

But the central theme and purpose of the secret Good Club meeting of the plutocrats was the priority concern posed by Bill Gates, namely, how to advance more effectively their agenda of birth control and global population reduction. In the talks a consensus reportedly emerged that they would “back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.” 18

Global Eugenics agenda

Gates and Buffett are major funders of global population reduction programs, as is Turner, whose UN Foundation was created to funnel $1 billion of his tax-free stock option earnings in AOL-Time-Warner into various birth reduction programs in the developing world.19 The programs in Africa and elsewhere are masked as philanthropy and providing health services for poor Africans. In reality they involve involuntary population sterilization via vaccination and other medicines that make women of child-bearing age infertile. The Gates Foundation, where Buffett deposited the bulk of his wealth two years ago, is also backing introduction of GMO seeds into Africa under the cloak of the Kofi Annan-led ‘Second Green Revolution’ in Africa. The introduction of GMO patented seeds in Africa to date has met with enormous indigenous resistance.

Health experts point out that were the intent of Gates really to improve the health and well-being of black Africans, the same hundreds of millions of dollars the Gates Foundation has invested in untested and unsafe vaccines could be used in providing minimal sanitary water and sewage systems. Vaccinating a child who then goes to drink feces-polluted river water is hardly healthy in any respect. But of course cleaning up the water and sewage systems of Africa would revolutionize the health conditions of the Continent.

Gates’ TED2010 comments about having new vaccines to reduce global population were obviously no off-the-cuff remark. For those who doubt, the presentation Gates made at the TED2009 annual gathering said almost exactly the same thing about reducing population to cut global warming. For the mighty and powerful of the Good Club, human beings seem to be a form of pollution equal to CO2.

15 Ibid. McKie writes, “The pregnancy prevention plants are the handiwork of the San Diego biotechnology company Epicyte, where researchers have discovered a rare class of human antibodies that attack sperm…the company has created tiny horticultural factories that make contraceptives…Essentially, the antibodies are attracted to surface receptors on the sperm,” said Hein. “They latch on and make each sperm so heavy it cannot move forward. It just shakes about as if it was doing the lambada.”

The wealthy, the "haves", have always maligned the underprivileged "have-nots", projecting onto them or magnifying the undesirable qualities that make it easier for the rich to steal what little the poor have left.

Historically, farmers and the poor have raised larger families because running a farm is hard work, and keeping a home together is also hard work, when you're holding it together on a handful of pennies/dollars per month.

The wealthy seek to reduce the poor to the status of animals, and where they cannot do that, they simply replace them with machines etc. It's quite inhumane and tragic to see. I believe that the world is more than capable of sustaining the current population, but no one seems to be investing in life. Only death.

Logged

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

The wealthy, the "haves", have always maligned the underprivileged "have-nots", projecting onto them or magnifying the undesirable qualities that make it easier for the rich to steal what little the poor have left.

Historically, farmers and the poor have raised larger families because running a farm is hard work, and keeping a home together is also hard work, when you're holding it together on a handful of pennies/dollars per month.

The wealthy seek to reduce the poor to the status of animals, and where they cannot do that, they simply replace them with machines etc. It's quite inhumane and tragic to see. I believe that the world is more than capable of sustaining the current population, but no one seems to be investing in life. Only death.

Can't we take their money?

Logged

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

The only moral option beyond reclaiming what was bought with tax dollars is learning how to self sustain and from that point, profit. Sounds impossible, I know, hence the entire idea of a prison planet in the first place.

But it's not impossible!

Bloody revolution without restraint when there is nowhere to go is straight communism and I can't endorse that... sounds too much like "change we can believe in"

Logged

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

He wont go with my good wishes - the going has got tough and hes legging it.

In my view he has already gone in spirit as evidenced by sending out de-motivated, tired and uninspired teams who now cant seem to make up for their lack of quality by the renowned back-to-the-wall, every ones against us spirit we saw previously.

Dont forget that this is the man who didnt fancy Fonte, Ertl, Morrsion, Carle, Martin and others all of whom have either gone on to do well elsewhere or actually shown that they are good players once Warnock was forced to play them.

Having said that we will be worse off at this stage without him as Warnock at full throttle is just the person we need in charge right now. Nevertheless if, by some miracle we can survive this mess forced on us by Agilo, then hopefully we can attract a young skilled manager who can build on the excellent academy and give us the type of football that I feel we deserve and can attract back supporters who have become disillusioned by a limited and unadventurous style of play that helped us through a difficult time but was never going to develop or move us forward in any meaningful way.